SHEO BARAN SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. ORDINANCE EQUIPMENT FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of suspension dated 22.6.93, Annexure-7 to the petition and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner as Secretary of the respondent-Society and to pay full salary. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to hold any enquiry against the petitioner into the charges contained in charge-sheet dated 12.5.92.

(2.) It is alleged in Para 1 of the petition that the petitioner was working as Secretary in the respondent-Society which is Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is alleged in Para 2 of the petition that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary under Section 31 of the Act in 1971 by the then Chairman of the Society and the appointment was approved by the Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Societies, Kanpur. The respondent No. 3 is a Society of the workers employed in Ordinance Equipment Factory. It is alleged in Para 4 of the petition that while respondent No. 2 was a member he misbehaved with the petitioner and other members of the Society and hence, a complaint was made by the petitioner against him to the General Manager of the Factory. He was given punishment of stoppage of two increments and was transferred from Kanpur to Shahjahanpur but later on the transfer order was cancelled. Again he committed misconduct in 1988 which was reported to the General Manager and the Police vide Annexures-1 and 2.

(3.) Upto 1991 no election of the Board of Directors of the Society was held and the Management of the Society was with the Administrator appointed by the State Government. The Administrator by order dated 30.11.1991, suspended the petitioner and gave him charge-sheet dated 12.5.92, vide Annexure-3. The petitioner submitted his reply and the enquiry was held and the enquiry report submitted. The Enquiry Officer on 31.5.93, submitted his report holding that the petitioner was not guilty of any of the charge vide Annexure-4. The Chairman of the Bank accepted the enquiry report and reinstated the petitioner with full back wages by an order dated 1.6.93, vide Annexure-5. It is alleged in Para 10 of the petition that due to the misfortune of the petitioner respondent No. 2 was elected Chairman of the Board of Director of the respondent-Society on 21.6.93. He suspended the petitioner by order dated 22.6.92 and ordered holding further enquiry into the same charges on which the petitioner had been previously acquitted and reinstated. True copy of the suspension order is Annexure 7. The respondent No. 2 has appointed respondent No. 3 as Enquiry Officer and sent a letter to the petitioner to attend the enquiry proceedings on 9.7.93, vide Annexure- 8. One R.N. Dixit issued notice to the petitioner for holding the enquiry and the enquiry was held and thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 7.11.94. Against that order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 36512 of 1994, before this Court in which an interim order dated 17.11.94 was passed staying the termination order. Thereafter the respondent-Society cancelled the termination order but again placed the petitioner under suspension. Thus, the petitioner's suspension is continuing from 22.6.94. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.